NewRelic MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('dashboard structure including all pages, their widgets, and widget configurations'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the action and return details, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure or potential limitations, though the current level is adequate for basic understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'guid' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain the GUID or format specifics. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra insights.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get a NewRelic dashboard') and resource ('with full page and widget details'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_dashboards' which likely returns a list rather than detailed structure. It explicitly mentions what is returned ('dashboard structure including all pages, their widgets, and widget configurations'), making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool ('to understand dashboard layout and widget queries'), which implies it's for detailed inspection rather than listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'list_dashboards' for broader overviews, leaving some guidance implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.